Cable systems should be regulated based on two categories:
A. those who employ switched video and
B. those who don't.
Since most cable systems have exiled leased access to TV "Gorky" i.e. the digital tier, when they employ Switched Video, our presence on their digital line up uses no more bandwidth and capacity regardless of weather the customer is watching us or something else since switched video only sends one digital program stream at a time to each set top box (not counting previews).
We should get a break on the price since our presence in their digital switched video line up is not effecting their capacity at the expense of another channel or service. On analog we did use bandwidth even if no one was watching. Not so with switched video.
3 comments:
Here are some better arguments.
1. Digital video, unless high definition, is ALWAYS compressed. That is they take between 5 and 12 TV channels, and they compress them into the bandwidth that one analog channel used to occupy. So from my current experiences it seems that they are acting as if we are using the analog space , for the standpoint of charging us the max. permitted rate, and yet they could actually be using as little as 1/12 the actual space when the transmit it out digitally compressed. They are having it both ways.
Also, most of the services you find on a digital tier, charge fractions of the programming fees the big channels charge on analog.
Lastly, the analog tiers are usually a D to A conversion. That is they have been down scaled to analog. So, in the near future many of the large operators will "bite the bullet and install a digital converter in all homes so that they can compress everything and gain even more bandwidth.
The real issue is always this, Congrees has not had its intentions met.That is diverse unaffiliated programming has not made it to the cable systems. It allowed the FCC and the cable systems to promulgate rules that makes the business model difficult in most cases. This is what we need to hammer on. Congress's intent has not been met, why? We need to ask all of our reps why this has not occurred and then be prepared to tell them that the operators have trumped them.
From
Randy Houser
The reason the FCC changed the payment scheme for leased access was precisely because of digital video and its compression.
They went from average implicit fee to marginal implicit fee with the idea that if a cable operator ever had to remove one channel in order to accommodate a leased access programmer, they would most likely replace the lowest revenue one not the average. The FCC was totally right on in their methodology.
But when it comes to switched video, I believe that Leased Access Programmers will not use up any more capacity on a cable system. They could have a million channels. We should really be charged per viewer. The whole system becomes pretty much video on demand except programs are played in real time.
I do disagree with one minor comment Randy made in that I believe that High Def cable programs are compressed a little.
FYI when Rupert Murdoch started Fox News he paid the cable companies .25 per sub per month for the first three years. Then they had to pay him .25 per sub per month thereafter. That was using a full analog channel not digital (which would put the price at about 2.5 cents per month.)
I think the FCC was right as rain in their new rules. The longer you look at them the more sense they make in the current digital world. But switched video will create endless bandwidth for standard def tv. We should get a break on price. Otherwise we are simply subsidizing the roll out of High Def and Internet bandwidth for the cable operators.
Post a Comment